Scott Brown's Favorite SCOTUS Justice: Scalia

In tonight's debate between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown, the 'independent" Brown was asked who is his favorite Supreme Court Justice.

His answer: Antonin Scalia.

I expect that to be in ads tomorrow.

Scalia arguing that the Constitution does not bar gender discrimination:

Leave it to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to argue that the Constitution does not, in fact, bar sex discrimination.
Even though the court has said for decades that the equal-protection clause protects women (and, for that matter, men) from sex discrimination, the outspoken, controversial Scalia claimed late last week that women's equality is entirely up to the political branches. "If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex," he told an audience at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law, "you have legislatures."

previously on similar cracks directed at Justice Thomas. The Scalia/Thomas rate of agreement last Term (93%) was higher than any other, but not significantly more than Roberts/Alito (91%), and there are nine pairings at or above 85%. And why would you suggest that Thomas follows Scalia rather than the other way around? I personally believe it is fair to criticize Thomas's legal philosophy (I certainly do), or even his choice to participate almost never in questioning at oral argument, but I do not think that the implied criticism of his ability and (intellectual) qualifications are legitimate at all.

You continue to comment on Justice Thomas' ability and (intellectual) qualifications and I will continue to make cracks directed at him. However, from my perspective, Thomas's impaired legal philosophy and his almost never participating in questioning at oral argument are foundational to fair and even, irreverent, criticism of his ability and (intellectual) qualifications. But, I am willing to alter my crack if it pleases, so that in the interest of economy, we can lose Scalia and give Thomas two votes. And, my rating of your comment is based on the superior, if not bullying, attitude toward my opinionated crack.

I'd like to see Peter lay out the argument that Clarence isn't fair game to be criticized for lack of ability or sufficient intellectual heft. Bec I'm with Keys that the circumstantial evidence going back to his hearings if not earlier suggests a second-rate intellect at best. A rigid ideologue and mediocre mind. Morally the estimation is even worse.

If we generally agree that Scalia's legal reasoning seems flawed, and Thomas agrees with him over 90% of the time, should we take from that that it is Thomas with the intellectual deficits, and not Scalia, with whom Thomas tends to agree?

Please don't take this as a defense of Thomas; I didn't think he was qualified at the time of his nomination, and what he has contributed in the years since seems to reflect that he is little more than a guaranteed vote for whatever the conservative position is.

Does that make him intellectually inferior? I don't know that we can draw that conclusion - which is, I think, all Peter was trying to point out.

Or maybe I didn't read Peter correctly - I'm happy to be corrected if that's the case.

The rest, frankly, is that no other Supreme Court justice, no matter how "adequately qualified," is so consistently referenced by first name, nor so constantly accused of intellectual inferiority. Granted that the comments are not intended as such, but it all has a racist tinge to me. Read his opinions; objectively, they are the equal of most of his colleagues'. Read his speeches; ditto. (Disregarding the ideology and philosophy.) That's all I'm saying.

colleagues." If Peter is right about this, and I think he is, we are burdened with what are, at best, a collection mediocre intellects on our nation's highest court.

Scalia is certainly no bright intellectual light, his PR, courtesy of a mediocre press, notwithstanding. Kennedy? Snotty and condescending to women, but not a big brain.

And I am not impressed with John Roberts and his Harvard law degree. I don't see any signs of a towering legal intellect at work here. And he is the most blatantly politically-biased and politically motivated chief justice of my lifetime, IMO, more than even Rehnquist.

Breyer, like all the men on the court, seems almost willfully ignorant of the effect court rulings have on people's lives.

The only one I give any real props to is Ginsburg. Maybe that is because she is clearly the more in tune with my beliefs, but I hope not.

As for Kagan and Sotomayor, well, it is too soon for me to tell where they will land.

I am not a lawyer. So, these are the opinions of a long-time court watcher who spent her formative years during Earl Warren's tenure as chief justice, and so, knows it doesn't have to be this way.

I regret the rating given to your comment above; it was intemperate and unjustified. Your sensitivity to possible racial undertones in criticisms of Justice Thomas enlightens and clarifies your response to me.

Quickly: no racial animus here just lingering anger that we're stuck with this mediocrity for 22 more years probably. Very politically cynical move by Poppy Bush.

And no I'm not impressed by Thomas putting his name to opinions and speeches almost certainly heavily written by clerks. When or if I ever hear Thomas in unscripted legal discussion or debate in the future and I'm impressed, then I might climb down a tad from considering him one of the most mediocre minds to sit on the Bench in decades.

As for first names I also use Fat Tony (Scalia) and Thin Tony (Anthony Kennedy). I used to refer to Rehnquist as Wild Bill. Yes there is animus behind those terms too -- political, just as with Thomas.

But as to intellect Scalia is much sharper, but too narrow, ideological and morally dubious. And, btw, I try to avoid racially charged terms like "inferior intellect" in the Thomas context, which another poster above introduced here.

As for Scott Brown, his choice of Scalia doesn't surprise me; there are a lot of people who think Scalia is brilliant - and many of them also tend to translate that perceived brilliance as Scalia being right.

To me, Scalia is to the judicial branch what Dick Cheney was to the executive.

but you're not an undecided, or independent, or moderate Brown voter that Warren needs to capture to win the election. In the competition for best Supreme Court answer to chase those on the fence, Warren's answer is the winner.

of Elena Kagan seemed to be the right one for her to make. Ms. Warren and Ms. Kagan were faculty colleagues at Harvard Law and Elena Kagan was also dean of the Harvard Law School. Her support of Justice Kagan advances and re-enforces their scholarly affinities and colleagueship during their joint academic tenures.

made a clumsy argument on behalf of Elizabeth Warren's choice. I hoped to make the point that their academic relationship gave her a special opportunity to know and understand Justice Kagan's thinking and that it corresponded well with her beliefs. Pride in an accomplished former colleague may be inextricably intwined in her assessment but need not be linked simply to alma mater or workplace.

Kagan isn't a huge departure from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, they are both on the left side of the Court, even if Kagan is a little less so.

It's not like choosing Kagan has changed my understanding of what EW stands for. It was perhaps the most effective way for EW to illustrate what she stands for. Or heck, maybe she just likes Kagan more, I dunno. ;)

total speculation that Warren was less than honest with her answer...I have no reason to doubt her sincerity.

Kagan is no Ginsberg though, when it comes to civil liberties anyway...there's Ruth and then there is everybody else on the court in that regard. Ginsberg strikes me as old school left...Kagan and Sotomayor as new school corporate centrist.

Just a little perturbed by this "wise political move" talk, ya know what I'm sayin'? It's everything that is wrong with politics, cheerleading misleading insincerity in the name of winning elections. When it comes to my representation, I don't a wise political mover, I want wisdom and good ideas.

Prior to the election, when you are nursing a lead, discretion is the better part of valor. The unwise political move sends you home to the basement to tilt at windmills. Even Sancho Panza with a voter ID card can't save you then.

or is it deception? Is it ok for a car salesman to be discreet or deceive about the car to close the sale? Or how about a lawyer to snag a client?

I understand your most pragmatic view, even if I disagree as to any valor to be found in it (politics and valor, in the same sentence, ha!;)...tell me you know where I'm coming from at least...that when you excuse "discretion" or "deception" before the election, the winner tends to bring it to the office.

...must be his favorite decision. Since it is the reason we DON'T really have representative legislatures anymore, not that they were doing much of the people's work before, but that ruling all but put the nails in the civic coffin. And to think Scalia has about fifty kids, the dude's spawn will be roaming the country for centuries. Oh the horror!

think he could think of any names of Supreme Court justices when the question was asked. He stalled for time... "That's a good question".... Then, Scalia is the first name that came into his small mind, so he said it. Then, after the crowd is obviously upset, he scratches his brain and comes up with Kennedy and Roberts... still not good with the crowd, and then Sotomayor. Covering all the bases. By then, his credibility was down the drain.

Brown's answer was far more flawed. When asked about working with bipartisan Senators he only mentioned Republicans Lugar and Olympia Snowe, neither of them across the aisle and neither in the Senate starting next year.

her answer -- Susan Collins -- by noting how, unfortunately and sadly, the Tea Party influence has so decimated the moderate wing of the R party such that there are very few reasonable and not extremist R senators left to work with across the aisle.

She should have turned the Q around like that and made the audience reflect on the RW nature of the Rs these days, and not answered so narrowly. Missed opportunity, but small compared to Brown's more glaring gaffe.

that technically it was the perfect answer. Should she win the race, she gave no leverage for anyone to pressure her to work with an existing Republican if it's against her principles or her better judgement.

It doesn't appear to have been a completely smooth response, but she didn't let herself get backed into an irrecoverable corner. Better to present as a gaffe or awkward moment that has a fleeting impression then to be stuck with long-term consequences. IMO.

Now I have no way of knowing if that's what she intended or not. That's just my unsolicited opinion.

I've been touting for years, the mind numbing ignorance of current events, and the issues that comprise them, displayed by our so called journalists. They are not news people; they are actors hired for the purpose of looking attractive, and understanding that in-depth analysis of actual news is not conducive for the mind set necessary to be receptive to the avalanche of commercials that precede, and follow, the sound bites masquerading as "news."

"Talking heads," which has been around for quite awhile, Shooter. As long as they look good and have a nice speaking voice, they are "journalists." {{Sigh}}
(Although, I must add that it seems to be even more important for the women in the "news business" to be young-looking and attractive, and preferably blonde, than it is for the men.)
I'm (barely) old enough to remember Edward R. Murrow, and I certainly remember Walter Cronkite. I seriously doubt that either would get a job in today's (so-called) "journalism" environment. :-(

Brings to mind the old expression that someone has a "real face for radio."

I don't think there's much new about pretty faces getting top billing - even the Mary Tyler Moore show lampooned the pretty face/empty head with the Ted Baxter character - and that was how many years ago?

But, yes - men have been allowed to age, women not so much; the advent of HDTV may be changing that a little - its sharp focus hasn't helped anyone's longevity in front of the cameras.

a lot of them "back in the day," did start in radio. Edward R. Murrow certainly did, and so did Walter Cronkite- who was, in fact, recruited by Murrow to join CBS News television back in the early days.
Oh, heck, with the ever-improving state of 3-D computer graphics and computer animation, how much longer will it be before there are no more actual humans reading the news but, instead, good-looking computer animations?
Never mind "oh heck." Oh, He!!. I'm making myself depressed.

by the gorgeous blond with the blinding white, ear to ear smile, clueless to the fact that she's reading, "hundreds die in torrential mudslides in SE Asia," and, without missing a beat, following with, "and, you won't believe what the Kardashians did Friday night.....details after the break."

some night; he segues from one story to the next and never changes his tone - and hardly even pauses for breath - even as he goes from a serious story to a sad one to a funny one.

As for Ted Baxter, he was a send-up of the impeccably coifed, overly tanned news anchor who had blindingly white teeth, but not enough sense to be able to wear the right expression for the stories he was reporting. Sometimes he'd realize midway that he was grinning through some grim news, and abruptly shift to a scowl.

came in part from a really bombastic right-wing superpatriot L.A. news anchor, George Putnam, who worked for years on a local independent LA station (KTLA) in the sixties and thereafter.

A real piece of work, entertaining to watch bec so over the top, back when I believe his station was owned by the old cowboy actor-crooner Gene Autry. Fit in nicely, from a wacko political extremist perspective, with then LA mayor Sam Yorty (a right wing nominal Dem), as well as with the emerging RW white citizenry of next door Orange County.

The original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause was to protect white males in the South from being disadvantaged by misguided liberal efforts to help the freed slaves or their descendents. Didn't you know that? What are you, totally ignorant of American constitutional history?

and anyone without it will have to cast a provisional ballot; I can foresee some problems if turnout is heavy and there are hundreds of thousands of provisional ballots cast that have to be hand-counted.

However, Simpson did not stop implementation of the entire voter ID law, known in Pennsylvania as Act 18. First of all, the part of the law requiring proof of identification for absentee voting will go through, as the plaintiffs dropped that from their request for an injunction. More important, Judge Simpson very narrowly crafted the injunction. First of all, poll workers can still ask voters in November to produce a valid ID. Here's what Judge Simpson wrote about that:

I reject the underlying assertion that the offending activity is the request to produce photo ID; instead, I conclude that the salient offending conduct is voter disenfranchisement. As a result, I will not restrain election officials from asking for photo ID at the polls; rather, I will enjoin enforcement of those parts of Act 18 which directly result in disenfranchisement.

The only part that directly results in disenfranchisement, in Simpson's ruling, is the part where voters without ID who cast a provisional ballot have that ballot tossed. Simpson says that these ballots will count. However, nothing in his ruling says that voters without ID will be allowed to cast a regular ballot. His entire injunction refers to removing the voter ID-related circumstances under which "A provisional ballot shall not be counted." I don't know how you can read this without concluding that everyone without ID will have to cast a provisional ballot.

A lot is going to depend on how well this gets communicated to Pennsylvanians; I think it might be very easy for some voters to conclude that their ballots won't get counted unless they have ID.

I don't know for sure but I believe Florida's is similar. Thanks to some of the info friends on this site gave me I now have been registered to vote and have a valid Florida Driver's License as of today along with my updated Disabled Parking Permit and I didn't have to change my name as the Duval County Tax Assessor insisted I must do or change my name legally to what it already was legally. Jacksonville city limits covers several counties. Today I was in Nassau County part of Jax and went into the Tax Assessor's office there and had it all done with a new license/photo I.d. in about 15 minutes rather than doing all the changes the other office informed me I would have to do to be "legal".
Many Thanks

about a crooked voter registration outfit operating in Fla. for the R's. Was getting dishwasher emptied so did not catch the name of the organization and them being "run out of the state". Reminded me of the "old days". LoL.

help and in a very timely fashion. I honestly took the idea someone here suggested (so sorry I can't remember exactly which of you suggested trying a different county) but my husband suggested I not tell them of my previous problems trying to get id and registered so I kept my mouth closed acted innoceent and kind of ditzy so the guy really wanted to help me. LOL.

From my reading it was a little weaker whereby poll workers can ask for picture ID and if voters don't have one they have to cast a provisional ballot. Irritating but they all still get to vote, and (again from my translation) the provisional ballots will all be counted. Just another irritant for poll workers on election day to jam up the lines.

Buried in the opinion is a line establishing that the requirement that voters without IDs cast only provisional ballots will also not be in effect during the November election. After describing a "transition" provision from January 1, 2012 until September 17, 2012 where voters who do not show ID may cast a ballot "without the necessity of casting a provisional ballot," the judge concludes that "the injunction will have the effect of extending the express transition provisions of Act 18 through the general election." The impact of this line is that voters without ID will cast normal, not provisional, ballots this November, but they will still be asked for ID.

That would be a better result than having to hand-count thousands and thousands of provisional ballots.

of misinformation gets broadcast to voters that will lead them to believe they're out of luck if they have no photo ID - and you know that there will be an abundance of that, as Republicans see what they thought was a foolproof plan to suppress the Democratic vote get thwarted.

And it's not just misinformation being disseminated to voters that is a concern, it's misinformation that gets disseminated to poll workers, the people on the front lines who have the power to accept or reject potential voters.

As someone who worked the polls through several election cycles in Maryland, something tells me that Pennsylvania will have more than the usual number of poll watchers on hand in the precincts - people registered with the Board of Elections to observe and note irregularities in the voting process.

in any key state. But this isn't 2000 where the Rs had a monopoly on the media and also outorganized and outsmarted the Gore camp in various mischievous ways in FL. O's campaign seems much better prepared on the ground than Gore's and we now have sufficient media means on our side to get out correct info.

That's my early morning positive outlook on the situation anyway. If we do our job right, given the size of O's lead in recent PA polls, this should not be another FL 2000 disaster.